I understand that one can eat low carb and gain muscle but its like saying eating a diet full of whole grains is going to help you lose weight. It might, but is it the most effective approach? Absolutely not. Its just crappy advice and the same goes for this situation. You can build a limited amount of muscle on low carb particularly if you've never trained before but if you have any experience and want to follow the smartest mkst efficient path to gaining muscle you need carbs it's that simple.

I'm really not interested in reopening particular debate though. Its been discussed several times with regard to how the body partitions energy and effects of training and so on and so forth. So, suffice to say I believe I understand the nuances just fine. You are more than welcome to use the search function though to revisit the issue.

Meh, I was more aggressive than need be before. I am not saying you have to be low carb, but to assert that it is necessary to carb up is just as incorrect. I think what I stated about frequency and intensity of training covers that. I'm not even gonna argue that it would be easier to gain weight with carbs than without. It would be easier. However, the question was simply can we gain lean mass without frequent carb ups. The answer is yes. To do so I would recommend a HIT protocol as they pair nicely.

And the prove lean muscle mass can't be had in low carb diets is a pathetic attempt to win this debate. Of course you can but I was stating that its inferior to the adaptations you would see while consuming carbs.

The context of my answer was based on an athlete trying to optimize their training to the fullest extent. And carbs definitely help if you are not morbidly obese or metabolically deranged and honestly if you don't believe that your wrong. Learn about the bodies energy systems and you will see that anaerobic glycolysis is much faster than lypolysis making it more ideal for intense training and what helps anaerobic glycolysis improve is the utilization and storage of glycogen

There are a lot of points you went over so ill try to answer them generally. I don't understand your comment about 3lbs per month so in gonna ignore that. I do understand gluconeogensis and i think it's very ineffective at filling glycogen stores when compared to just eating carbs. I don't know what hit is but i was merely stating that positive adaptations occur when you have ample carbohydrates and resistance train. I also didn't say size = strength but bigger muscles generally can handle larger loads. I'm sure you convinced some people with all your crazy caps but you are wrong.

Or to make it easy please just prove that eating a surplus of calories DOES NOT lead to more lean mass in the presence of resistance exercise.....WILL NOT HAPPEN!
For more Paleo Diet hacks: can you build muscle and bulk up on a high fat diet - PaleoHacks.com http://paleohacks.com/questions/160697/can-you-build-muscle-and-bulk-up-on-a-high-fat-diet#ixzz2Bz4sfggL

BTW...If I read your first correctly you equate hypertrophy (bigger) with direct strength (better)...I call Bullshit. Dude I'm an X-wrestler 16 years and yes collegiate. Size is SHIT. Its all about actual STRENGTH

Do you understand that your utilization of glycogen is dependent on your metabolic health and flexability? Please. Like I said it depends on your goals. If its simply hypertrophy without regard to health or actual strength I could map a way for your.....however, if you would like to be metabolically fit and strong/athletic...that is something quite different.

You fail to understand that glycogen stores aren't fixed in number. The more muscle your body produces the more glycogen you can store which makes you not only have bigger muscles but it also largely improves athletic abilities.

oh i see, i thought op was confused about my wording. honestly, i know this is lazy but i don't have the energy to explain. sorry. just know that if you arent obese and metabolically deranged and you want to perform at your highest athletic potential, carbs are your friend. do your own research from there.

5
Answers

So continued. IMO its fairly easy to gain lean mass when you are metabolically healthy. Eating at a surplus is the only REAL requirement. How much volume you plan on doing and at what intensity may determine your carb requirements. Personally, I perform HIT which means I'm a proponent of less frequent exercise at higher intensity. This also means that I will have plenty of time between lifting bouts to refill my glycogen stores even if I stick to a lower carb protocol.

If however you are working out five days a week at high intensity you may need to ingest more carbohydrate to compensate.

The real question is if one way or another will equate to better muscular gain. In my experience the HIT protocol is sufficient for everyone but those who are ACTUAL bodybuilders. Which is to say I think its just as good for strength as the volume approach. It is sufficient for strength, athleticism, and size ...BUT...there are only a few well known body builders that follow that protocol. I think strict hypertrophy does require a bit more volume. But, your talking about a very specific effect for a very small percent of "athletes" there.

I mean if you wanna get swolled eat up the carbs to get the big look...but, also realize that most bodybuilders dehydrate prior to the show to accentuate their leanness and get the cut look.

And the prove lean muscle mass can't be had in low carb diets is a pathetic attempt to win this debate. Of course you can but I was stating that its inferior to the adaptations you would see while consuming carbs.

You fail to understand that glycogen stores aren't fixed in number. The more muscle your body produces the more glycogen you can store which makes you not only have bigger muscles but it also largely improves athletic abilities.

BTW...If I read your first correctly you equate hypertrophy (bigger) with direct strength (better)...I call Bullshit. Dude I'm an X-wrestler 16 years and yes collegiate. Size is SHIT. Its all about actual STRENGTH

Meh, I was more aggressive than need be before. I am not saying you have to be low carb, but to assert that it is necessary to carb up is just as incorrect. I think what I stated about frequency and intensity of training covers that. I'm not even gonna argue that it would be easier to gain weight with carbs than without. It would be easier. However, the question was simply can we gain lean mass without frequent carb ups. The answer is yes. To do so I would recommend a HIT protocol as they pair nicely.

The context of my answer was based on an athlete trying to optimize their training to the fullest extent. And carbs definitely help if you are not morbidly obese or metabolically deranged and honestly if you don't believe that your wrong. Learn about the bodies energy systems and you will see that anaerobic glycolysis is much faster than lypolysis making it more ideal for intense training and what helps anaerobic glycolysis improve is the utilization and storage of glycogen

Do you understand that your utilization of glycogen is dependent on your metabolic health and flexability? Please. Like I said it depends on your goals. If its simply hypertrophy without regard to health or actual strength I could map a way for your.....however, if you would like to be metabolically fit and strong/athletic...that is something quite different.

Or to make it easy please just prove that eating a surplus of calories DOES NOT lead to more lean mass in the presence of resistance exercise.....WILL NOT HAPPEN!
For more Paleo Diet hacks: can you build muscle and bulk up on a high fat diet - PaleoHacks.com http://paleohacks.com/questions/160697/can-you-build-muscle-and-bulk-up-on-a-high-fat-diet#ixzz2Bz4sfggL

There are a lot of points you went over so ill try to answer them generally. I don't understand your comment about 3lbs per month so in gonna ignore that. I do understand gluconeogensis and i think it's very ineffective at filling glycogen stores when compared to just eating carbs. I don't know what hit is but i was merely stating that positive adaptations occur when you have ample carbohydrates and resistance train. I also didn't say size = strength but bigger muscles generally can handle larger loads. I'm sure you convinced some people with all your crazy caps but you are wrong.

I understand that one can eat low carb and gain muscle but its like saying eating a diet full of whole grains is going to help you lose weight. It might, but is it the most effective approach? Absolutely not. Its just crappy advice and the same goes for this situation. You can build a limited amount of muscle on low carb particularly if you've never trained before but if you have any experience and want to follow the smartest mkst efficient path to gaining muscle you need carbs it's that simple.

I'm really not interested in reopening particular debate though. Its been discussed several times with regard to how the body partitions energy and effects of training and so on and so forth. So, suffice to say I believe I understand the nuances just fine. You are more than welcome to use the search function though to revisit the issue.

I suppose you could eat high fat and build muscle, not sure why you would want to, unless your into the low carb dogma.

You will find it much easier with carbs, like 30%. Your muscles will look flat without them, you need them for training aswell, you cannot fuel weight training with fat, it must be carbs (carbs already stored in your muscles count, meaning you don't have to eat carbs before working out)

Stick most of your carbs around the workout and you should consider rice and white potato as supps if you don't want usually eating them. I try to take pro and fat every day the same quantity but i'm not able to eat so much carbs in training days, so when i relax myself I enjoy more easily and alkaline carbs.
Roasted chestnuts is the way!